PDA

View Full Version : no athlon 64 for Maya ??


sabathyus
10-18-2004, 11:15 PM
Hi, I noticed none of the vendors (boxx alienware) use amd Athlon 64 for their Maya workstations. I noticed the Alias website has left Athlon 64 as untested. Anyone know why? Or has anyone got a workstation with Athlon 64 and how does it work? I personally can't see a problem with it but I wanted to check with someone. Insights?

lots
10-19-2004, 01:44 AM
I wouldnt imagine any problems running Maya on the Athlon64/Opteron series chips. They are compatable with 32Bit x86 code, so therefore should work fine with any app written for that architecture..

Granted I dont personally own or use Maya, and have a Athlon64/Opteron system to use it on.. But just knowing what the chips are about, I doubt there are any major issues with Maya on it. Though im sure someone thats got both will come along to clear anything up :)

nepaligurkha
10-19-2004, 01:48 AM
Hi,

I have a a Athlon 64 3000+. I haven't had any probelms with it running maya. Well i have only had it for about 4 months.

Tabha

ajk48n
10-19-2004, 03:30 AM
I've had Maya 5.01 running on Dual Opteron 240s for about a year. I've never seemed to have any problem related to the chips.

-Vormav-
10-19-2004, 04:23 AM
Runs fine on my Athlon 64 2800+
Can't imagine there being any problems.

Novakog
10-19-2004, 06:51 AM
Runs fine on my AMD 64 machine as well.

elvis
10-19-2004, 10:21 AM
Hi, I noticed none of the vendors (boxx alienware) use amd Athlon 64 for their Maya workstations. I noticed the Alias website has left Athlon 64 as untested. Anyone know why? Or has anyone got a workstation with Athlon 64 and how does it work? I personally can't see a problem with it but I wanted to check with someone. Insights?
Call me cynical, but I pay less and less attention to "supported/tested" hardware these days. Ditto for certified drivers.

Generally speaking the hardware gets supported if the manufacturer is willing to donate a unit for free for testing.

That, and most testing is so far behind it isn't funny. Some of Nvidia's "Certified Drivers" on their website don't even support their newest range of cards!

I'd be asking people who use the software to make a living, rather than those who just sell it. Again, excuse my extreme cynicism, it's been a long day.

Vertizor
10-19-2004, 05:01 PM
I have 2 words for you: Mental Ray

MR works really well with Intel's HyperThreading on certain P4 and Xeon chips. Not to say that Opterons can't hold their own, in fact in some renderers the Opterons would perform better. But MR in particular likes P4s and Xeons.

Lorecanth
10-19-2004, 05:45 PM
Intel and xeons are better for video not mental ray. Every MR bench I've seen has put a dual opteron system winning against a dual xeon, and that not even to mention the 10-15 % speed increase the 64 bit version of MR supposedly brings.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2213&p=3

Things have been switching around pretty fast, but if you're going to make "better than" statements show benchmarks.

matty429
10-19-2004, 06:09 PM
I have 2 words for you: Mental Ray

MR works really well with Intel's HyperThreading on certain P4 and Xeon chips. Not to say that Opterons can't hold their own, in fact in some renderers the Opterons would perform better. But MR in particular likes P4s and Xeons. As far as I can tell A64's are the chip to have for maya..
I've had one running on maya 5 and 6 for 8 months or soo . and I couldn't be happier..


http://www.zoorender.com/html/benchmark_maya.htm (http://%0Ahttp://www.zoorender.com/html/benchmark_maya.htm)

http://www.zoorender.com/html/benchmark_mental.htm

Vertizor
10-19-2004, 06:25 PM
Intel and xeons are better for video not mental ray. Every MR bench I've seen has put a dual opteron system winning against a dual xeon, and that not even to mention the 10-15 % speed increase the 64 bit version of MR supposedly brings.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2213&p=3

Things have been switching around pretty fast, but if you're going to make "better than" statements show benchmarks.
What 10-15% speed increase for the 64-bit version? The graph in the link you posted showed the 64-bit version being slower than the 32-bit. Or am I reading it wrong? I hope I am. I'm reading it wrong *sigh of relief*

That's nice, but Anandtech doesn't mention if those P4's were using Hyper Threading or not. If we're just measuring raw horsepower, then yes, I'd agree the AMD64 chips are better, I'm not a fanboy of either companies. But what's more important is how well software can take advantage of the technology available. I've seen benchmarks where turning on HT allows Intel chips to pull ahead, and other's where HT drags them to the ground.

Well the real question is why don't workstation vendors offer AMD64 machines for their Maya configs. Send them an e-mail, simple as that.

lots
10-19-2004, 09:31 PM
What 10-15% speed increase for the 64-bit version? The graph in the link you posted showed the 64-bit version being slower than the 32-bit. Or am I reading it wrong? I hope I am. I'm reading it wrong *sigh of relief*
On the graphs on that anandtech review I noticed there was about one second faster in fovor for MR running under a 32bit environment. BUT, read the article real quick and you'll see that they were NOT using a 64bit version of MR.

Below, we use Mental Ray 3.3.1 to render a particularly intensive benchmark scene (which you can download here (http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/linux/oscomparison/Benchmark_Mental.mb)). Maya exists in 64-bit binaries in various circles, but we have only been able to obtain a 32-bit license and thus a 32-bit version of MentalRay. Below, you can see how the 32-bit binaries perform on both 64-bit and 32-bit versions of SuSE 9.1 Pro.
If you look at the Pov Ray benches (Which ARE 64bit), you will see that it does improve quite a bit.

Vertizor
10-20-2004, 04:03 AM
If you look at the Pov Ray benches (Which ARE 64bit), you will see that it does improve quite a bit.
I see that, but I want to bring you back into context of what I said and regarding the original question. I said Intel chips with HT would be better. I based my statement on watching a video demo showing 3DS Max using MR, the artist was using a dual Xeon computer with HT turned on, and during rendering there were 4 buckets moving about the image, rather than just 2.

The original question was why weren't there any AMD64 based systems for a "built for Maya" configuration from workstation vendors. I'll admit I took an educated guess, I'm certainly not a staff of any major workstation vendor. But I'll just leave it at that: an educated guess that can and has been easily debunked.

Lorecanth
10-20-2004, 06:51 AM
Ok to get back into it, as far as hyper threading goes. Its not that great of a technology for 3D its just a virtualized second processor. Depending on the scene I've actually seen it slow down a render. As far as bucket rendering, the bucket setting is set in software. You can control it in the MR standalone options if not nessacarily in the 3d software you're plugged into.

Opterons right now are arguably the best if you're doing solely 3D, also with the promise of dual core chips on the same chipset, Come 6 months if you want to double your computers performance just drop in two new chips.

In any case there are still reasons to go with xeons, such as if you're doing a lot of mpeg-2 encoding. But for now until intel gets off its ass, go with opterons.

Last but not least in answer to the original question take a look at Boxx. They build an opteron 3d workstation.

lots
10-20-2004, 09:18 AM
Vertizor, i know what you're talking about. I was just pointing out that the speed increase wasnt there due to the lack of 64bit MR for 64Bit linux on the review site. Thats all :)

Anyway..

I couldnt give you a good reason as to why there aren't many Opteron based workstations aside from the fact that Intel has traditionally been the major player in this market. Only now that AMD has gotten some footing and is finally pushing a competative product in this sector are people wanting Opteron based workstations. That is why I would say the vendors don't have many Opteron offerings on thier big Maya workstations. Besides, who gets fired for buying Intel ;) But give them time, I'm sure some vendors will pick the Opteron up. They're good chips :)

MadMax
10-20-2004, 06:48 PM
Opterons right now are arguably the best if you're doing solely 3D, also with the promise of dual core chips on the same chipset, Come 6 months if you want to double your computers performance just drop in two new chips.

In any case there are still reasons to go with xeons, such as if you're doing a lot of mpeg-2 encoding. But for now until intel gets off its ass, go with opterons.
I wouldn't call a virtual draw in encoding applications a reason to still go with Xeon. Fact is, AMD wins about half of the media encoding application benchmarks, Intel wins others.

In some benchmarks, like WMP 9.0 HD encoding, Intel encode 2.57 frames per second to AMD's FX 55 at 2.36 frames per second.

At regular WMP 9 encoding AMD is faster by a full 10 seconds.

At Xvid 5 encoding AMD is faster 34.6 to 33.9 Not much but still faster.

On Divx 5.2.1 Intel wins by about 6 seconds.

AMD is slightly faster if you are using Main Concept encoder.

So on media encoding it is a toss up. They are EVENLY matched.

However very few people use a machine for JUST media encoding. They use other apps like 3D, Photoshop etc. And then you get into the bencharks where you see AMD dominating virtually all the benchmarks across the board unchallenged.

So for me the choice is pretty easy. AMD wins on virtually all major apps with very few exceptions. ASMD's 2.4ghz chips had edged slightly ahead of Intel on Cinema 4D bencharks and part of the 3DS Max benchmarks.

AMD wins in Maya and the top rated system on the Lightwave benchmarks pages, last time I checked anyway were FX and A64 chips.

And that was before AMD started shipping the 2.6ghz CPU's.

Overall better speed, largely tied on encoding apps, and do I need to really worry that the difference between the two on a major encoding app is on .21 frames per second?

Turn that around for a sec, are you going to buy the machine because it wins some encoding benchmarks but is slower on everything else??????

Lorecanth
10-20-2004, 09:58 PM
i stand corrected opterons are winning on encoding too :)

MadMax
10-20-2004, 11:48 PM
i stand corrected opterons are winning on encoding too :)
Well I wouldn't go that far. It's split fairly evenly between the two vendors though whic makes "Intel is better at encoding" a more than a bit misleading statement to make, especially if one says it without benefit of having seen benchmarks in the last year.

CGTalk Moderation
01-19-2006, 02:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.